California has just passed Assembly Bill (AB) 749 resolving an ambiguity under current case law by generally prohibiting an employer from requiring, in settling an employment dispute, that a current or former employee agree not to obtain future employment with that employer.
A similar issue arose last year in Golden v. Cal. Emergency Physicians Med. Grp., in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the no hire provision contained in a settlement agreement between a physician and his former employer, a physician medical group, constituted a “restraint of a substantial character” on the physician’s medical practice and therefore violated California’s non-compete law, Business and Professions Code section 16600. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit found that the agreement’s preclusion of the physician from working at “any facility owned or managed by” the employer was lawful but that it violated Section 16600 to the extent that it permitted the employer to terminate the physician from employment with any medical facility where the employer contracts or may later contract for services.
AB 749 expands on this Ninth Circuit ruling by barring any agreement to settle an employment dispute from containing a provision “prohibiting, preventing or otherwise restricting” the employee from obtaining employment with the employer or “any parent company, subsidiary, division, affiliate or contractor of the employer.” Significantly, the law only applies in circumstances where Continue reading
Last month, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 5 into law. This lengthy bill generally codifies and expands the applicability of the three-part ABC test from the Dynamex decision in determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor for purposes of California Labor Code, Unemployment Insurance Code, and the Wage Orders.
A recent California Court of Appeal decision, Townley v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc., has further defined the scope of reimbursable business expenses under California Labor Code section 2802, this time in the context of slip-resistant shoes for restaurant workers.
A former server filed an action under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), seeking civil penalties on behalf of herself and other “aggrieved employees” for California Labor Code violations, including the failure to reimburse the cost of slip-resistant shoes. Plaintiff alleged a violation of Labor Code section 2802, which requires an employer to reimburse employees for all necessary expenditures incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties.
Plaintiff argued that, because the restaurant required employees to wear slip-resistant, black, closed-toes shoes for safety reasons, such shoes should be provided free of cost or employees should be reimbursed for their cost.
The Court of Appeal, persuaded by the reasoning in an unpublished Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Lemus v. Denny’s, Inc., and guidance from the California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), held that section 2802 did not require the restaurant employer to reimburse its employees for the cost of slip-resistant shoes. Specifically, the Court held that the cost of shoes does not qualify as a “necessary expenditure” under section 2802.
The California legislature is considering a bill that would codify in the Labor Code and Unemployment Insurance Code the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex – which adopted a standard that made it significantly more difficult for employers to classify workers as independent contractors, ignoring the realities of the modern workplace and gig economy. Assembly Bill 5 was introduced back in December 2018, and has passed the Assembly and is making its way through the Senate.
As this blog previously noted, last year the Supreme Court in Dynamex interpreted the definition of “employee” under the California Wage Orders as placing the burden on the hiring entity seeking to characterize a worker as an independent contractor to establish each of these three factors: (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in performing the work; (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature as the work performed. This is known as the “ABC test.”
For years prior to the Dynamex decision, the California courts Continue reading
On Thursday, October 25, 2018, at 1 pm EDT, join Kara M. Maciel and Andrew J. Sommer of Conn Maciel Carey’s national Labor & Employment Practice Group for a complimentary webinar: “A Business Primer on Disability Access Laws: Preventive Tools and Defense Strategies“
Businesses continue to be plagued by litigation under the Americans with Disabilities, Title III (ADA) over alleged access barriers. Lawsuits against hotels and retailers, among other public accommodations, appear to be on the rise with a disproportionate share in California.
This webinar will provide an overview of ADA, Title III standards as they apply to construction existing before the enactment of the ADA in 1992 as well as to subsequent new construction and alterations. The webinar will also address Continue reading
As most of our blog readers are aware, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires employers to keep records on wages, hours and other items, as specified in Department of Labor regulations. Most of the information is of the kind generally maintained by employers in ordinary business practice and in compliance with other laws and regulations.
In recording working time under the FLSA, infrequent and insignificant periods of time beyond the scheduled working hours, which cannot as a practical matter be precisely recorded for payroll purposes, typically need not be compensated. Until now, the courts have held that such periods of time are “de minimis” and thus need not be compensated. The FLSA’s de minimis rule applies only where there are uncertain and indefinite periods of time involved, a few seconds or minutes in duration, and where the failure to count such time is justified by industrial realities.